Chapter 1 Introduction - portoflosangeles.org Marine Oil/DEIR/01_Shell... · 16 Torrance, Phillips 66-Wilmington, ... APM Container Terminal!! ... l Figure 1-2 Project Vicinity Map

Berths 167-169 [Shell] Marine Oil Terminal Wharf Improvement Project March 2018 1-1

APP#131007-133 SCH#20150611022

Chapter 1 1

Introduction 2

1.1 Introduction 3

The Berths 167-169 [Shell] Marine Oil Terminal is one of seven marine oil 4 terminals that operate within the Port of Los Angeles (Port), each operating under 5 separate leases. The Shell Marine Oil Terminal has been in operation at Mormon 6 Island since 1923 as a marine liquid bulk terminal (unloading and loading of 7 petroleum products). The existing Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD) 8 permit or lease (Permit No. 634) became effective in February 1988, and expires 9 in February 2023. 10

11 Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft Environmental Impact Report 12 (EIR) describes the affected environmental resources and evaluates the potential 13 impacts on those resources that are likely to occur as a result of building and 14 operating the proposed Project. This Draft EIR will be used to inform decision 15 makers and the public about the environmental effects of the proposed 16 improvements to the Berths 167-169 [Shell] Marine Oil Terminal, which 17 constitute the proposed Project. 18

1.2 Background 19

1.2.1 Project Location 20

The LAHD administers the Port under the California Tidelands Trust Act of 1911 21 and the Los Angeles City Charter. The LAHD develops and leases Port property 22 to tenants who operate the facilities. The Port encompasses approximately 7,500 23 acres and 43 miles of waterfront and is located approximately 20 miles south of 24 downtown Los Angeles (Figure 1-1). The Port serves as a major gateway for 25 international goods and services. With 23 major cargo terminals, including dry 26 and liquid bulk, container, breakbulk, automobile, and passenger facilities, the 27 Port handled about 165 million metric revenue tons of cargo in fiscal year 28 2014/2015 (July 2014–June 2015) (POLA, 2018). In addition to cargo business 29 operations, the Port is home to commercial fishing vessels, shipyards, boat repair 30 facilities, as well as recreational, community, and educational facilities. 31

32 33

Long Beach

Port of LASan Pedro

Santa Monica

West Hollywood

Wilmington

Glendale

PasadenaArcadia

Torrance

LAX

Culver CityMontebello

Whittier

Norwalk

Orange County

Los Angeles%&'(10

%&'(405

%&'(405

%&'(405

%&'(110

%&'(110

%&'(105

%&'(605

%&'(605

%&'(5 %&'(210

%&'(10

%&'(710

%&'(710

(/101

(/101

·|}þ110

·|}þ2

·|}þ134

·|}þ170

·|}þ91

·|}þ22·|}þ47

·|}þ60

!

%&'(5

Project Site

!

P a c i f i c O c e a n

Port of LB!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Figure 1-1 Regional Location Map

0 4 82Miles

Berths 167-169 [Shell] Marine Oil Terminal Wharf Improvements Project

oBasemap Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, 2010

Los Angeles Harbor Department Chapter 1 Introduction

Berths 167-169 [Shell] Marine Oil Terminal Wharf Improvement Project March 2018

1-3

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

The Project site is located within the Port of Los Angeles Community Plan area 1 in the City of Los Angeles, which is adjacent to the City of Los Angeles 2 communities of San Pedro and Wilmington. The Project site occupies Berths 3 167 to 169 in the southwestern end of a peninsula on Mormon Island along the 4 east side of Slip 1. The Project site is generally bounded by Rio Tinto Minerals 5 to the north, Slip 1 to the west, the Turning Basin to the south, and Berths 170 – 6 173 to the east (East Basin Channel) (Figure 1-2). Land access to and from the 7 Project site is provided by a network of freeways and arterial routes. The 8 freeway network consists of the Harbor Freeway (Interstate [I]-110), the Long 9 Beach Freeway (I-710), the San Diego Freeway (I-405), and the Terminal Island 10 Freeway (State Route [SR]-103/SR-47). 11

1.2.2 Marine Oil Terminals 12

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), conventional petroleum 13 fuels will be the main source of transportation energy for the foreseeable future. 14 There are six major refineries in the region (Chevron-El Segundo, PBF Energy-15 Torrance, Phillips 66-Wilmington, Tesoro-Carson, Tesoro-Wilmington, and 16 Valero-Wilmington). The Port’s seven marine oil terminals include: Kinder 17 Morgan (Berths 118-119), Phillips 66 (Berths 148-151), NuStar Energy/Shore 18 Terminal (Berth 163), Valero/Ultramar (Berth 164), Shell (Berths 167-169), 19 Vopak (Berths 187-191) and PBF Energy (Berths 238-239). 20

1.2.3 Project Overview 21

1.2.3.1 MOTEMS Overview 22

The primary goal of the proposed Project is to comply with the Marine Oil 23 Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) regarding 24 mooring and berthing design criteria to protect public health, safety and the 25 environment. The MOTEMS are comprehensive engineering standards for the 26 analysis, design and inspection/maintenance of existing and new marine oil 27 terminals. The MOTEMS were approved by the California Building Standards 28 Commission on January 19, 2005 and are codified as part of California Code of 29 Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Marine Oil Terminals, Chapter 31F. These 30 standards apply to all existing marine oil terminals in California and include 31 criteria for inspection, structural analysis and design, mooring and berthing, 32 geotechnical considerations, fire, piping, and mechanical and electrical systems. 33 MOTEMS became effective on January 6, 2006 (CSLC, 2015). The MOTEMS 34 are reviewed and updated every three years and this proposed Project is required 35 to comply with the most recent version. The California State Lands Commission 36 (CSLC) oversees the MOTEMS program. Through ongoing discussions with the 37 CSLC, the LAHD developed an implementation strategy to complete the 38 necessary MOTEMS requirements at the marine oil terminals within the Port. 39

%&'(110

·|}þ47Project Site

Yusen (YTI) ContainerTerminal

ExxonMobil SAInland Tanks

!

!

APL Container Terminal

!

Terminal WayEverport ContainerTerminal

APM Container Terminal

!

!

China ShippingContainerTerminal

!

Yang Ming ContainerTerminal

!

!

ConocoPhillips

Harry Bridges Blvd

Fries Ave

W I L M I N G T O N

La Pa

loma

Slip 1

East Basi

n Chan

nel

S A N P E D R O

T E R M I N A L I S L A N D

Vincent Thomas Bridge

Long BeachHarbor

Pacif

ic Av

e

UV47

Pacif

ic Av

e

9th St

Gaffe

y St

Turning Basin

22nd St

Harbo

r Blvd

San Pedro Bay

Front St

25th St

John S

Gibson

FishHarbor

Miner St

Via Cabrillo Marina

Seaside Ave

Pier 400

Beac

on S

tOcean Blvd

Term

inal W

ayPier 300

Gaffey St

West Basin

Outer Los Angeles Harbor

East Basin

Main Channel

Figure 1-2 Project Vicinity Map

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Berths 167-169 [Shell] Marine Oil Terminal Wharf Improvements Project

oBasemap Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, 2010



1-5

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

The MOTEMS implementation strategy addresses wharf upgrades and other 1 requirements under MOTEMS, land use inconsistencies where present, and 2 provides opportunities to increase utilization of Harbor lands and wharf assets. 3

The MOTEMS require each marine oil terminal to conduct an audit to determine 4 the level of compliance and an evaluation of the continuing fitness-for-purpose of 5 the facility. Depending on the results, terminal operators must then determine 6 what actions are required to meet the standards, and provide a schedule for 7 implementation of deficiency corrections and/or rehabilitation. The standards 8 define criteria in the following areas: 9

• Audit and Inspection 10 • Structural Loading 11 • Seismic Analysis and Performance Based Structural Design 12 • Mooring and Berthing Analysis and Design 13 • Geotechnical Hazards and Foundations 14 • Structural Analysis and Design of Components 15 • Fire Prevention, Detection and Suppression 16 • Piping and Pipelines 17 • Electrical and Mechanical Equipment 18

19 The initial audit performed for the Shell Oil Company’s marine oil terminal at 20 Berths 167-169 in 2010 identified a number of items that require upgrading. The 21 structural, mooring, berthing, and piping evaluations all demonstrated the need 22 for upgrades to their representative systems. The geotechnical evaluations 23 indicated that improvement measures are needed to meet seismic requirements 24 (AECOM, 2010). 25

The proposed Project would construct a new MOTEMS compliant wharf and 26 mooring system for the existing Shell Marine Oil Terminal at Berths 167-169. 27 Other MOTEMS-related Project elements include pipeline and pipeline support 28 (shore side) improvements along the terminal, and topside equipment 29 replacement. 30

1.2.3.2 Operations Overview 31

The existing marine terminal occupies a land area of approximately nine acres on 32 Mormon Island and an over water area of approximately three acres. The 33 terminal has two operating berths (Berths 168 and 169), 11 storage tanks of 34 various sizes, parking, and several ancillary buildings. The Shell Marine Oil 35 Terminal handles refined petroleum products and feedstock such as gasoline, 36 diesel, ethanol, and jet fuel that are transferred to and from vessels (tankers and 37 barges). Shell operates the terminal as part of its efforts to meet Southern 38 California energy needs given evolving market conditions and business cycle 39 variability. Marine oil terminal business cycles do not occur on a specific time-40 scale. Rather, the marine oil terminal business cycles are influenced by a myriad 41 of economic factors and market conditions, including petroleum product supply 42 and demand; economic and regulatory changes; fluctuating oil prices, gross 43 domestic product (GDP), and unplanned supply disruptions. 44

45

Chapter 1 Introduction Los Angeles Harbor Department

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-6


Based on economic and market conditions and Shell Oil Company’s business 1 forecasts, an average annual two percent growth rate is assumed for the Shell 2 Marine Oil Terminal at Mormon Island during the new 30-year lease period. The 3 proposed Project would not increase storage capacity or throughput handling 4 capacity (i.e., barrels and vessel calls) at the terminal. For additional information 5 on proposed Project operations, see Section 2.5.4 in Chapter 2, Project 6 Description. 7

1.3 CEQA and the Purpose of an EIR 8

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted by the 9 California Legislature in 1970, with the intent that all agencies of the state 10 government that “regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and 11 public agencies that are found to affect the quality of the environment shall 12 regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing 13 environmental damage while providing a decent home and satisfying living 14 environment for every Californian” (13 Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000, 15 Legislative Intent). Public agency decision makers are required to consider and 16 document the environmental effects of their actions and, whenever possible, 17 avoid adverse effects on the environment. When a state or local agency 18 determines that a proposed project has the potential to affect the environment 19 significantly, an EIR is prepared. The purpose of an EIR is to identify the 20 significant effects of a proposed project on the physical environment, identify 21 alternatives to reduce the proposed Project’s significant effects while achieving 22 the project objectives, and indicate the manner in which a project’s significant 23 effects can be mitigated or avoided. A public agency must mitigate or avoid 24 significant environmental impacts of projects it carries out or approves whenever 25 feasible. In instances where significant impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, 26 the project can nonetheless be carried out or approved if the approving agency 27 finds that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the 28 unavoidable significant environmental effects. 29

1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies 30

The Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for 31 carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the 32 environment (PRC Section 21067). The Board of Harbor Commissioners has the 33 primary responsibility for approving the project as a whole and is the appropriate 34 public agency to act as Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15051[b]), 35 including evaluating potential impacts and identifying mitigation measures under 36 state CEQA laws. 37

Several other agencies have special roles with respect to the proposed Project and 38 will use this EIR as the basis for their decisions to issue any approvals and/or 39 permits that might be required. Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a 40 “responsible agency” as: 41

…a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a 42 project, for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an 43 EIR or negative declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term 44



1-7

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

“responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the 1 lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the 2 project. 3

Additionally, Section 15386 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a “trustee agency” 4 as: 5

…a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources 6 affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the 7 State of California. 8

Table 1-1 lists the lead, responsible, trustee, state, and local agencies that could 9 rely on this Draft EIR in a review capacity or as a basis for issuance of a permit 10 or other approval for the proposed Project. 11

Table 1-1: Agencies Expected to Use this EIR Agency Responsibilities, Permits, and Approvals

Federal Agencies

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Lead federal agency for implementation of NEPA on the proposed Project. The USACE has jurisdictional authority over the proposed Project pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Responsible for permitting work and structures in navigable waters, discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, and transport and disposal of dredged material at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated sites in ocean waters. A USACE Letter of Permission of a Department of the Army (DA) Permit was obtained on April 14, 2014 for the proposed Project and will be renewed as necessary.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) Fisheries/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Reviews federal actions in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) for marine species. Administers Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for most marine species. Also responsible for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Provides EFH information, reviews potential effects of federal action on EFH, and provides conservation recommendations to USACE through consultation. Issues take authorizations under the MMPA and ESA for certain species.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Has jurisdiction over marine facilities, bridges, and vessel transportation in harbor waters. Responsible for ensuring safe navigation and for preventing and responding to oil or hazardous materials releases in the marine environment. Also, as Captain of the Port, the USCG maintains oversight of the Shell Marine Oil Terminals Dock Operations Manual, as well as approvals related to vessel operations and oil spill prevention and response measures.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Has primary responsibility for implementing the federal Clean Air Act and works with other federal agencies to implement conformity requirements. Reviews and submits recommendations for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans for non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities engaged in storing, processing, refining, transferring, distributing, or consuming oil and gas products. Reviews and submits recommendations to USACE related to federal construction actions.


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-8


Table 1-1: Agencies Expected to Use this EIR Agency Responsibilities, Permits, and Approvals

State Agencies

CSLC

The CSLC has oversight responsibility for tidal and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions, and has adopted regulations for the inspection and monitoring of marine terminals. The CSLC inspects and monitors all marine facilities for effects on public health, safety, and the environment. CSLC will review proposed Project design elements for compliance with MOTEMS.

California Coastal Commission (CCC)

Reviews environmental documents to ensure compliance with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and consistency with the California Coastal Act; performs a federal Consistency Determination for major coastal energy-related facilities, which is appealable to the CCC. The CCC also reviews and must approve Port of Los Angeles Master Plan (PMP) amendments.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Trustee agency with oversight responsibility for tidal and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions. Reviews and submits recommendations in accordance with CEQA. Consults with lead agencies in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Issuance of Memoranda of Understanding and permits pertaining to take of state-listed species under the California Endangered Species Act.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) division of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)

Regulatory agency responsible for issuance of a Hazardous Waste Generator ID for management of wastes generated by construction and by routine operations.

Regional Agencies

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB)

Permitting authority for federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certifications; permitting authority for California Waste Discharge Requirements pursuant to the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and responsible for issuance of both construction and industrial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permits under Section 402 of the CWA. Issuing authority of municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit to City of Los Angeles.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

Permitting authority for construction and operation of petroleum storage tanks, and stationary sources at terminal facilities; activities involving hydrocarbon-containing soils (Rule 1166); and new or modified sources of air emissions (New Source Review).

1



1-9

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

Local Agencies

LAHD The City of Los Angeles, through its Harbor Department, is the Lead Agency for CEQA and the California Coastal Act (via the certified PMP). Other City departments have various approval and permitting responsibilities, however, and are listed separately below for the sake of clarity. Pursuant to its authority, the LAHD could issue permits and other approvals (e.g., coastal development permits, leases for occupancy of Port land, approval of operating, and joint venture or other types of agreements for the operation of facilities) for the proposed Project and alternatives evaluated in this EIR. LAHD has leasing authority for Port land, permitting authority for construction on Port property, and is responsible for general regulatory compliance, PMP amendments and map changes (required for any new CDFs), and activities of other City of Los Angeles departments for the proposed Project and alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR.

City of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department

Permitting authority for building and grading permits. Approves, in conjunction with City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, any required Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans or Site-Specific Mitigation Plans/Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. Such plans implement requirements of the MS4 permit that has been issued by LARWQCB to the City of Los Angeles.

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation

Permitting authority for Industrial Waste Permit for discharges of industrial wastewater to the City sewer system. Approves, in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department, any required Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans or Site-Specific Mitigation Plans/LID requirements that may be necessary to implement MS4 permits issued by the LARWQCB.

City of Los Angeles Fire Department

Approval of Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Inventory and its Risk Management and Prevention Program. Reviews and submits recommendations regarding designs for building permit.

1.5 Scope and Content of the Draft EIR 1

The scope of the Draft EIR is based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and 2 Initial Study (IS) prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and comments 3 received during the public review period. Two NOP/IS’ associated with the 4 proposed Project have been circulated for public review. Both NOP/IS’ are 5 included in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes the comment letters received 6 during the two public review periods. The first NOP/IS (hereafter referred to as 7 the ‘2015 NOP’) was circulated for public review from July 1, 2015 to July 31, 8 2015, with a public scoping meeting held on July 15, 2015. Five comment letters 9 were received during the review period. There were no comments received at the 10 scoping meeting. Subsequent to the circulation of the 2015 NOP, it was 11 determined that in 2015 the Shell Marine Oil Terminal handled approximately 12 20.58 million barrels of petroleum products, which is substantially higher than 13 2014 throughput, and more importantly, higher than the previously projected 14 throughput for the terminal (19.1 million barrels). It was therefore determined 15 that because of the fluctuations (lows and highs) of the throughput associated 16 with the Shell Marine Oil Terminal from year to year, that a five-year average 17 (2011 through 2015) would better represent the baseline period. This change 18 results in a higher baseline and higher future throughput projections. This is 19


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-10


discussed in further detail in Section 2.6, CEQA Baseline in Chapter 2, Project 1 Description. Because the revised baseline and future throughput would be higher 2 than previously assumed, a ‘Revised NOP’ was circulated to reflect the most 3 current information. The Revised NOP/IS is also included in Appendix A. The 4 public review period for the revised NOP/IS took place from April 15, 2016 to 5 May 16, 2016. Two new comment letters were received during the review 6 period, and one comment letter was received that was a duplicate of a comment 7 letter received during the July 2015 review period from the Los Angeles City 8 Sanitation District. 9

The scope of analysis and technical work plans developed as part of preparing 10 this Draft EIR were designed to ensure that the comments pertaining to the 11 potential environmental impacts of the Project received during the review process 12 both NOPs were addressed. 13

Table 1-2 presents a summary of the key comments received during the 2015 14 NOP public comment period and Table 1-3 presents a summary of the key 15 comments received during the Revised NOP public comment period (in 2016). 16 Tables 1-2 and 1-3 also provide references to the sections of this Draft EIR 17 addressing the comments received. 18

Table 1-2: Summary of Key 2015 NOP Comments Commenter Key Issues Raised Sections Addressed

CSLC - Acknowledges that the proposed Project is located on sovereign submerged lands that have been transferred, in trust, to the City of Los Angeles (Statute of 1911, Chapter 656), and that the City should ensure that uses are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine.

- Notes that the Project Description in the Draft EIR should be as detailed as possible.

- Suggests revising the primary Project goal to refer to comprehensive MOTEMS code compliance.

- Recommends revising the following sentence, found on page 2 in the first paragraph, as follows, "The MOTEMS are reviewed and updated every three years and all marine oil terminals are this Project is required to comply with the most recent version."

- Recommends that USACE and LAHD should conduct queries of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database and USFWS’s Special Status Species Database to identify any special-status plant or wildlife species that may occur in the proposed Project area. Coordination with CDFW and USFWS, as well as direct surveys or data collection, should be performed.

Refer to the Revised NOP for revisions requested. Chapter 1, Introduction Chapter 2, Project Description. Section 3.2, Biological Resources (which includes noise mitigation during pile diving).



1-11

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102


- Recommends that the EIR should evaluate noise and vibration impacts on marine wildlife from construction, as follows: “As mentioned in the NOP, installation of steel pipe piles is anticipated to result in underwater sound levels that could adversely affect marine mammals. In addition to underwater sound impacts on marine mammals, please consider the impacts of underwater sound on fish during wharf demolition and pile driving. Mitigation measures could include species-specific work windows as defined by CDFW, USFWS, and the NMFS.”

- Recommends that the EIR include a discussion of sea level rise, as it pertains to the proposed Project. Particularly whether the proposed Project would increase the risk of oil spills from the proposed Project due to flooding of the wharf or facilities.

Regarding Sea Level Rise, Checklist Item IX. (j) of the Initial Study Checklist (see 2015 NOP and Revised NOP in Appendix A of this Draft EIR) discusses the anticipated sea level rise by 2050, and determined that sea level rise would not result in overtopping of the new loading platforms. In addition, sea level rise should be considered as part of the design. In addition, Section 3.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, briefly describes sea level rise.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

- Requests copy of Draft EIR along with all appendices and related technical documents.

- Recommends citing SCAQMD Rule 1166 – Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Decontamination of Soil, and SCAQMD Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities.

- Notes that the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) is available to assist with preparation of the air quality analysis, and that CalEEMOD is the preferred land use emissions model.

- Recommends quantifying localized air quality impacts using SCAQMD methodology and guidance, and compare the results to

SCAQMD is a standard agency on this and other LAHD project mailing lists; Section 3.1, Air Quality and Meteorology


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-12



SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) or performing dispersion modeling if necessary.

- Notes that CEQA requires the identification of all feasible mitigation measures, including those that go beyond what is required by law.

Joyce Dillard - Requests that watershed quality and degradation issues be addressed.

- Provides information regarding LARWQCB issued MS4 permit.

Checklist Item IX. (d) of the Initial Study Checklist (see 2015 NOP and Revised NOP in Appendix A of this Draft EIR), the City would continue to be covered under the NPDES requirements (including the MS4 Permit) regarding discharges to the harbor.

Los Angeles Conservancy

- Notes that it should not be assumed that new construction is the only way to bring Berths 167-169 into MOTEMS compliance, as there is a precedent for the structural rehabilitation of timber-framed infrastructure at terminal facilities that are MOTEMS compliant.

- Disagrees with the 2009 and 2104 update cultural resources reports that determined that the timber wharf does not retain integrity.

- Recommends the timber wharf be evaluated (in the Draft EIR) under Criterion A due to its association with Shell Oil Company, which for over ninety years and played an active role at the Los Angeles Harbor in Los Angeles’ burgeoning petroleum industry during the twentieth century.

- Recommends that if the timber wharf at Berths 167-169 is determined to be a historical resource as defined under CEQA, the Draft EIR should include at least one preservation alternative that attempts to meet project goals and reduce significant adverse impacts to the timber wharf.

Checklist Item V. of the Initial Study Checklist (see 2015 NOP and Revised NOP in Appendix A of this Draft EIR)

Los Angeles City, Bureau of Sanitation

- Notes that the proposed Project will require implementation of stormwater control measures, based on Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and LID requirements.

- Notes that the proposed Project will require implementation of stormwater control

As described in Checklist Item IX (a) in the 2015 NOP and Revised NOP (Appendix A of the Draft EIR), the existing storm drain system for the land portion of the terminal would not be affected by



1-13

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102


measures during construction, including compliance with the California General Construction Stormwater Permit.

- Provides information about the City’s Green Streets initiative.

the proposed Project and would continue comply with the requirements regarding discharges to the harbor from the wharf, including complying with SUSMP requirements. Checklist Item IX(a) also discusses compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities.

1 2

Table 1-3: Summary of Key Revised NOP Comments Commenter Key Issues Raised Sections Addressed

Jesse N. Marquez of Coalition for A Safe Environment et al.

- Notes that the NOP should represent the baseline year of 2014; no significant justification to use an averaged baseline. Port cargo has been and will continue to increase annually in all categories. A one-year significant increase does not warrant a five-year averaged baseline.

- Requests an accurate projection of the number of ship visits, imported products, and annual terminal capacity, and notes that these factors are expected to increase; however, using an averaged baseline will show less emissions associated with operations (i.e., ship exhaust, loading/unloading, storage tanks).

- Recommends not bypassing SCAQMD requirements, for best available control technology (BACT) when operations increase emissions and capacity.

- Notes that no information on whether Shell will retrofit ships to connect with shore power systems like the Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) at POLA is provided in the NOP. Suggests considering other technology, such as the Advanced Maritime Emission Control

As shown in Table 1 of the Revised NOP, the terminal throughput has been in a general decline throughout the averaging period, with the exception of 2015 where there was a substantial increase. Refer to Section 2.4 of the Revised NOP and Section 2.6 of Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR for information on the CEQA Baseline. The increment would be greater between the baseline and future lease year (2048) using the five-year average than under the 2014 baseline used in the 2015 NOP.

Section 3.1, Air Quality and Meteorology for emission assumptions. Regarding AMP, because the use of AMP requires a costly retrofit to the vessels and that a terminal can only require that retrofit for vessels that it controls, AMP is not currently


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-14



System (AMECS), which captures and removes more airborne emissions from diesel auxiliary engines and boilers of oceangoing vessels than AMP. (Attachment provided)

- Recommends considering the use of Vapor Recovery Units (VRU) to capture gases flashed from the petroleum storage tanks; and notes that as a result, VRUs can help to reduce methane and greenhouse gas emissions below actionable levels specified in Title V of Clean Air Act. (Attachment provided)

- Notes that use of Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers (RTO) can also help to efficiently collect and treat volatile organic compounds (VOC) from storage tanks. (Attachment provided)

- Suggests that air quality, public safety, and biological impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant impacts; therefore, Shell would be required to contribute to the Harbor Community Benefit Foundation at the rate of $0.25 per metric ton of imported product.

- Recommends addressing the potential for ship whale strikes and loss of whale food resources as a result of increases in annual ship visits to POLA.

- Recommends addressing the Green Port Policy for green construction options and community mitigation measures.

- Requests that all types of permits required by SCAQMD and other governmental regulatory agencies be disclosed in EIR (e.g., Title V permit).

proposed for marine oil terminals (due to lack of tenant owned fleet vessels). As noted in Section 2.5.1.2 of the Revised NOP and Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed Project is proposing use of a vapor control system for the loading of vessels, as well as maintaining BACT of floating roofs for storage tanks. Refer to Section 3.1, Air Quality and Meteorology, Section 3.4, Hazards (related to safety), and Section 3.2, Biological Resources for the detailed analysis. Section 3.2, Biological Resources for information on whale strikes and loss of habitat and food sources. Refer to Section 3.1, Air Quality and Meteorology for the application of LAHD’s Sustainable Construction Guidelines. Refer to Table 2-2 regarding regulatory requirements associated with the proposed Project.

Dr. Tom Williams of Citizens Coalitions for A Safe Community

- Requests the following:

o Provide an unsecured version of the Draft EIR to copy text and for ease of commenting.

o Revise the following objectives in order to not mix NEPA/CEQA terms:

Primary objective fulfilling MOTEMS,

Optimize existing land and associated waterways,

The Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines and at the discretion of the Lead Agency. The terminal only handles refined petroleum products or feedstock to petroleum products; no crude oil is processed through the terminal.



1-15

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102


evolving market conditions - removal of crude oil export prohibition,

business cycle - depressed crude oil prices,

Existing facility's throughput capabilities and operational parameters,

Comply with source control program,

minimize the potential for accidental product release

o Use of correct title of project proponent/tenant, such as Shell Oil Co., Shell Oil Products, Equilon Enterprises L.L.C.

o Provide descriptions and links to all permits applied for and granted during 2011.

o Clearly separate product and crude petroleum fluids.

o Clarify sources and characterization of foreign and US crude oil imports (2010-15) (i.e., API gravity, vapor generation, sulfer).

o Clarify sources of potential exports of domestic crudes and condensates (2014 to present).

o Include maximum operational and physical loading/offloading off-gasing (2010-16) and maximum capacity of current and proposed terminal vapor recovery systems (i.e., storage capacity, venting/flaring/liquefaction capacity).

o Provide volumes with converted values.

o Provide clear definitions and quantification of MOTEMS requirements, such as “to reduce the likelihood of petroleum product loss in case of a significant seismic event.”

o Provide maximum physical loading/offloading throughput and transfer of terminal facilities rather than projections.

o Provide proposed and planned use of terminal area vacant, located east of

Chapter 2, Project Description (for existing and projected throughput in barrels, pump rates, and vessel assumptions). Chapter 1, Introduction (for MOTEMS requirements). Any future use of any vacant facility near the Project site would be a related (and separate) project analyzed in Chapter 5, Cumulative Analysis. The Project site and proposed Project do not include rail or rail access. Section 3.1, Air Quality and Meteorology for berthing assumption. Chapter 2, Project Description for a description of the logical termini of the proposed Project, as well as information on maximum tanker sizes. Refer to Section 3.4, Hazards for the risk analysis.


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-16



facilities and south of railroad systems.

o Provide any POLA studies regarding provision of rail access to any MOTEMS facilities by tankage relocation, installation of new pipelines, and/or extension of existing tracks.

o Provide description and process flow diagrams for reversibility and capacities of berth facilities, tank pumps, gas processing, terminal storage, and terminal in/outbound pipelines.

o Provide anticipated berth time for import-offloading and export-loading tankers; highest ten percent of berth times (hours) for years exceeding 20 million barrels/year (bbl/yr).

o Provide description of pipelines connected to Mormon Island facilities and those between the project and railroad/oil transfer facilities within LA County (i.e., vapor pressure limits ad maximum physical capacities [bbl/hour or day] at maximum permitted pipeline pressures to/from project).

o Provide maximum tanker sizes (i.e., tonnage, depth and berth length) and capacity of Panama Canal passage after 2016.

o Include mitigation measures for the risk management plan; the emergencies response plans relative to spills and fire explosions; and contingencies for identified risks, resource, drills, and reporting and coordination.

o Link to all water discharges (NPDES NO. CA0003557, CI-1596) Order No. R4-2011-0097.

o Link to all air emission release for Mormon Island MOTEMS facilities.

1



1-17

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1.5.1 Scope of Analysis 1

This Draft EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (PRC Sections 2 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of 3 Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.). It includes all of the sections required by 4 CEQA. 5

Under CEQA, a “threshold of significance” can be defined as an “identifiable 6 quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, 7 non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be 8 significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally 9 will be determined to be less than significant” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 10 15064.7 [a]). The criteria for determining the significance of environmental 11 impacts in this Draft EIR analysis are described in the section titled “Thresholds 12 of Significance” under each resource topic in Chapter 3. The threshold of 13 significance for a given environmental effect is the level at which the Lead 14 Agency finds a potential effect of the proposed Project or alternative (in Chapter 15 6, Analysis of Alternatives) to be significant. 16

The 2015 NOP and Revised NOP (Appendix A) indicated that there would be no 17 impact to agriculture and forest resources, cultural resources, land use and 18 planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. The 2015 19 NOP and Revised NOP also indicated that there would be a less than significant 20 impact related to aesthetics, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, 21 noise, public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. As 22 such, these resource areas are not evaluated in this EIR in accordance with State 23 CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(B). In accordance with Sections 24 15063(c)(3)(A) and 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, further analysis of specific 25 issue areas where impacts were determined to be less than significant in the IS is 26 not required and will not be provided in this EIR. 27

The following resource areas are evaluated in this Draft EIR: 28

• Air Quality

• Biological Resources

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Hazards

In addition, this Draft EIR includes an Energy Conservation analysis to address 29 energy consumption and conservation related to the proposed Project consistent 30 with the guidance in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. 31

This document has been prepared by CDM Smith under contract to the LAHD 32 and has been reviewed independently by City staff. The scope of the document, 33 methods of analysis and conclusions represent the independent judgments of the 34 City. Staff members from the LAHD and CDM Smith who helped prepare this 35 Draft EIR are identified in Chapter 10, List of Preparers and Contributors. 36


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-18


1.5.2 Intended Uses of This Draft EIR 1

This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with applicable federal and state 2 environmental regulations, policy, and law to inform federal, state, and local 3 decision-makers about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 4 Project and alternatives. As an informational document, an EIR does not 5 recommend approval or denial of a project. The Draft EIR is being provided to 6 the public for review, comment, and participation in the planning process. After 7 public review and comment, a Final EIR will be prepared, including responses to 8 comments on the Draft EIR received from agencies, organizations, and 9 individuals. The Final EIR will be distributed to provide the basis for decision-10 making by the CEQA lead agency, as well as other concerned agencies. 11

1.5.2.1 USACE Role 12

The USACE has jurisdictional authority over the proposed Project pursuant to 13 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The scope of the federal review is 14 normally defined by 33 CFR 325, Appendix B, which states: 15

…the [USACE] district engineer should establish the scope of the 16 NEPA document to address the impacts of the specific activity 17 regarding the Department of the Army (DA) permit and those portions 18 of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient 19 control and responsibility to warrant Federal review. 20

The USACE has issued a Letter of Permission of a DA permit to the LAHD for 21 the proposed Project. 22

1.5.2.2 LAHD Use 23

LAHD has jurisdictional authority over the proposed Project primarily pursuant 24 to the Tidelands Trust, California Coastal Act, and the Los Angeles City Charter. 25 This Draft EIR will be used by LAHD, as the lead agency under CEQA, in 26 making a decision regarding the construction and operation of the proposed 27 Project or alternative and in informing agencies considering permit applications 28 and other actions required to construct, lease, and operate the proposed Project or 29 alternative. LAHD’s certification of the EIR, Notice of Completion, Findings of 30 Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary) would document 31 their decision as to the adequacy of the EIR and inform subsequent decisions by 32 LAHD whether to approve and construct the proposed Project or alternative. 33

Actions that could be undertaken by LAHD following preparation of the Final 34 EIR include: certification of the EIR, approval of the proposed Project, 35 completion of final design, issuance of a Coastal Development Permit, issuance 36 of engineering permits, obtaining other agency permits and approvals (e.g., 37 dredge and fill, grading, construction, occupancy, and fire safety), and approval 38 of construction contracts. 39

1.5.2.3 CSLC Role 40

The CSLC’s authority is set forth in Division 6 of the California Public 41 Resources Code 13 and by the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, sections 42 1900-2970. The CSLC has oversight responsibility for tidal and submerged 43



1-19

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions, and has adopted 1 regulations for the inspection and monitoring of marine terminals. The CSLC 2 inspects and monitors all marine facilities for effects on public health, safety, and 3 the environment. As such, the CSLC has the authority to review the MOTEMS-4 related design and enforce MOTEMS compliance. 5

1.5.2.4 Other Agencies 6

Other agencies (federal, state, regional, and local) that have jurisdiction over 7 some part of the proposed Project or a resource area affected by the proposed 8 Project are expected to use this EIR as part of their approval or permit process as 9 set forth in Table 1-1. 10

Specific approvals that could be required for this proposed Project include, but 11 are not limited to: USACE Permit (pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and 12 Harbors Act), building and safety permits, water quality permits (Clean Water 13 Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirements 14 pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Clean Water Act 15 Section 402 NPDES permits), and construction contracts by LAHD and Los 16 Angeles City Council. 17

1.5.3 Draft EIR Organization 18

The Executive Summary of this Draft EIR contains a summary of the document 19 and allows the reader to easily reference the analysis of potentially significant 20 impacts, proposed mitigation measures, residual environmental impacts after 21 mitigation, if any, and alternatives to the project that reduce or avoid significant 22 effects on the environment. This summary also presents areas of controversy, 23 including issues raised by members of the public and agencies during the public 24 scoping period. Detailed analysis of these issues is contained in the main body of 25 the document. 26

The Introduction (Chapter 1) describes the purpose of the EIR, a list of the 27 required project approvals and other agencies that must consider aspects of the 28 project the scope and content of the document, the availability of the Draft EIR, 29 and a brief outline of organization of this document. 30

The Project Description (Chapter 2) describes the Project location, a description 31 of the proposed Project, the purpose, need and objectives of the proposed Project, 32 the anticipated phasing of the proposed Project, and a brief description of the 33 alternatives evaluated in the document. 34

For each environmental resource area, the Environmental Analyses (Chapter 3) 35 contains a discussion of the setting (existing conditions and regulatory 36 framework), impact assessment methodology, the environmental impacts 37 (including cumulative impacts) that could result from the proposed Project, and 38 the mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce the identified significant 39 impacts. The criteria used to assess the significance of significant environmental 40 impacts are identified, and the significance of the impact both prior to and 41 following mitigation is reported. 42


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-20


Socioeconomics (Chapter 4) provides an assessment of potential socioeconomic 1 impacts of the proposed Project as to the extent socioeconomic impacts could 2 result in indirect effects on the physical environment. 3

Cumulative Analysis (Chapter 5) provides a summary of significant cumulative 4 impacts and whether or not the proposed Project makes a cumulatively 5 considerable contribution to that significant impact. 6

Analysis of Alternatives (Chapter 6) evaluates a range of alternatives to the 7 proposed Project. It describes impacts that would result from each of the 8 alternatives, compares the significant environmental impacts of the proposed 9 Project and alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 10 It also identifies alternatives initially considered but not carried forward for 11 detailed review. 12

Growth-Inducing Impacts (Chapter 7) discusses the extent to which the proposed 13 Project would result in growth-inducing impacts. 14

Significant Irreversible Changes (Chapter 8) describes the significant irreversible 15 changes to the environment associated with the proposed Project. 16

References (Chapter 9) identifies the materials and documents consulted in 17 preparing this Draft EIR. 18

List of Preparers/Contributors (Chapter 10) lists the individuals involved in 19 preparing this Draft EIR. 20

Acronyms and Abbreviations (Chapter 11) provides the full names for acronyms 21 and abbreviations used in this document. 22

The 2015 NOP and Revised NOP, as well as supporting background documents 23 and technical information for the impact analyses, are included as Appendices. 24

1.6 Key Principles Guiding Preparation of 25

this Draft EIR 26

1.6.1 Emphasis on Significant Environmental Effects 27

This Draft EIR focuses on the significant environmental effects of the proposed 28 Project and alternatives, and their relevance to the decision-making process. The 29 following sections describe the general framework for analysis under CEQA. 30 These summaries are not meant to capture the legal nuances that have developed 31 through the passage and amendment of various statutes and regulations, and from 32 corresponding judicial decisions; rather, the summaries are meant to 33 communicate a general understanding of this act. 34

“Environmental impacts,” as defined by CEQA, include physical effects on the 35 environment. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15360) define the 36 environment as follows: 37



1-21

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

The physical conditions which exist within the area which will be 1 affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, 2 minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or 3 aesthetic significance. 4

This definition does not include strictly economic impacts (e.g., changes in 5 property values) or social impacts (e.g., a particular group of persons moving into 6 an area). The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15131[a]) state that “economic or 7 social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the 8 environment.” However, economic or social effects are relevant to physical 9 effects in two situations. In the first, according to Section 15131(a) of the State 10 CEQA Guidelines: “An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a 11 proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social 12 changes…to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes.” 13 In other words, if an economic or social impact leads to a physical impact, this 14 ultimate physical impact would be evaluated in the EIR. In the second instance, 15 according to Section 15131(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines: “Economic or 16 social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical 17 changes caused by the project.” 18

As with economic or social impacts, psychological impacts are outside the 19 definition of the term “environmental.” While not specifically discussed in the 20 State CEQA Guidelines, the exclusion of psychological impacts was specifically 21 affirmed in the 1999 court decision National Parks and Conservation Association 22 v. County of Riverside 71 Cal. App. 4th 1341 and 1364 (1999). 23

In view of these legal precedents, LAHD is not required to treat economic, social, 24 or psychological impacts as significant environmental impacts absent a related 25 physical effect on the environment. Therefore, such impacts are discussed only 26 to the extent necessary to determine the significance of the physical impacts of 27 the proposed Project and alternatives. Socioeconomics are addressed in Chapter 28 4. 29

1.6.2 Forecasting 30

In this Draft EIR, LAHD and its consultants have made their best efforts to 31 predict and evaluate the reasonable, foreseeable, direct, indirect, and cumulative 32 environmental impacts of the proposed Project and alternatives. CEQA does not 33 require LAHD to engage in speculation about impacts that are not reasonably 34 foreseeable (State CEQA Guideline Sections 15144 and 15145). CEQA does not 35 require a worst-case analysis. 36

1.6.3 Reliance on Environmental Thresholds and 37

Substantial Evidence 38

The identification of impacts as “significant” or “less than significant” is one of 39 the important functions of an EIR. While impacts determined to be “less than 40 significant” need only be acknowledged as such, an EIR must identify feasible 41 mitigation measures for any impact identified as “significant.” In preparing this 42 document, LAHD has based its conclusions about the significance of 43 environmental impacts on identifiable thresholds and has supported these 44 conclusions with substantial scientific evidence and publicly available 45


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-22


information. 1

The criteria for determining the significance of environmental impacts in this 2 analysis are described in each resource section in Chapter 3, Environmental 3 Analysis. The “threshold of significance” under CEQA for a given 4 environmental effect is the level at which LAHD finds a potential effect of the 5 proposed Project (or alternative, as analyzed in Chapter 6) to be significant. 6 “Threshold of significance” can be defined as a “quantitative or qualitative 7 standard or set of criteria, pursuant to which significance of a given 8 environmental effect may be determined” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 9 15064.7(a)). 10

1.6.4 Disagreement Among Experts 11

During preparation of the Draft EIR, it is possible that evidence that might raise 12 disagreements will be presented during the public review of the Draft EIR. Such 13 disagreements will be noted and will be considered by the decision-makers 14 during the public hearing process. However, to be adequate under CEQA, the 15 Draft EIR need not resolve all such disagreements. 16

In accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, conflict of 17 evidence and expert opinions on an issue concerning the environmental impacts 18 of the proposed Project - when LAHD is aware of these controversies - has been 19 identified in this Draft EIR. The Draft EIR has summarized the conflicting 20 opinions and has included sufficient information to allow the public and 21 decision-makers to take intelligent account of the environmental consequences of 22 their actions. 23

In rendering a decision on a project where a disagreement exists among experts, 24 the decision-makers are not obligated to select the most conservative, 25 environmentally protective or liberal viewpoint. Decision-makers might give 26 more weight to the views of one expert than to those of another and need not 27 resolve a dispute among experts. In their proceedings, the decision-makers must 28 consider the comments received and address any objections, but need not follow 29 said comments or objections so long as the decision-makers state the basis for 30 their decision and the decision is supported by substantial evidence. 31

1.6.5 Duty to Mitigate 32

According to Section 15126.4(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, each significant 33 impact identified in an EIR must include a discussion of feasible mitigation 34 measures that would avoid or substantially reduce the significant environmental 35 effect. To reduce significant effects, mitigation measures must avoid, minimize, 36 rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for a given impact of the proposed 37 Project. Mitigation measures must satisfy certain requirements to be considered 38 adequate. Mitigation should be specific and enforceable, define feasible actions 39 that would demonstrably improve significant environmental conditions, and 40 allow monitoring of their implementation. Mitigation measures that merely 41 require further studies or consultation with regulatory agencies and are not tied to 42 a specific action that would directly reduce impacts, or that defer mitigation until 43 some future time, are not adequate. 44



1-23

APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

Effective mitigation measures clearly explain objectives and indicate how a given 1 measure should be implemented, who is responsible for its implementation, and 2 where and when the mitigation would occur. Mitigation measures must be 3 enforceable, meaning that the lead agency must ensure that the measures would 4 be imposed through appropriate permit conditions, agreements, or other legally 5 binding instruments. 6

Section 15041 of the State CEQA Guidelines grants public agencies the authority 7 to require feasible changes (mitigation) that would substantially lessen or avoid a 8 significant effect on the environment associated with activities involved in a 9 project. Public agencies, however, do not have unlimited authority to impose 10 mitigation. A public agency might exercise only those express or implied powers 11 provided by law, aside from those provided by CEQA. However, where another 12 law grants discretionary powers to a public agency, CEQA authorizes use of 13 discretionary powers (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15040). 14

In addition to limitations imposed by CEQA, the U.S. Constitution limits the 15 authority of regulatory agencies. The Constitution limits the authority of a public 16 agency to impose conditions to those situations where a clear and direct 17 connection (“nexus,” in legal terms) exists between a project impact and the 18 mitigation measure. Finally, a proportional balance must exist between the 19 impact caused by the project and the mitigation measure imposed upon the 20 project applicant. A project applicant cannot be forced to pay more than its fair 21 share of the mitigation, which should be roughly proportional to the impact(s) 22 caused by the project. 23

1.6.6 Requirements to Evaluate Alternatives 24

According to CEQA regulations, the alternatives section of an EIR is required to: 25

• rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a reasonable range of 26 feasible alternatives; 27

• include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction or 28 congressional mandate of the lead agency, if applicable; 29

• include No Project; 30

• develop substantial treatment of each alternative, including the proposed 31 action, so that reviewers could evaluate their comparative merits; 32

• identify the Environmentally Superior Alternative of the lead agency; 33

• include feasible mitigation measures (when not already part of the 34 proposed action or alternatives); and 35

• present the alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study and 36 briefly discuss the reason(s) for elimination. 37

State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) require that an EIR describe a 38 reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project, or to the location 39 of a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the 40 proposed project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant 41 environmental impacts. According to State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should 42 compare merits of the alternatives and determine an environmentally superior 43 alternative. Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR sets forth potential 44


APP#131007-133 SCH#2015061102

1-24


alternatives to the proposed Project and evaluates their suitability, as required by 1 the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6). 2

1.7 Availability of the Draft EIR 3

The Draft EIR for the proposed Project and alternatives is being distributed 4 directly to agencies, organizations, and interested groups and persons for 5 comment during the formal review period in accordance with Section 15087 of 6 the State CEQA Guidelines. A 45-day comment period has been established, 7 which begins on March 27, 2018 during which the Draft EIR is available for 8 general public review at the following locations: 9

LAHD 10 Environmental Management Division 11 222 W. 6th Street, Suite 900 12 San Pedro, California 90731 13 14 Los Angeles City Library 15 Central Branch 16 630 West 5th Street 17 Los Angeles, California 90071 18 19 Los Angeles Public Library 20 San Pedro Branch 21 931 South Gaffey Street 22 San Pedro, California 90731 23 24 Los Angeles Public Library 25 Wilmington Branch 26 1300 North Avalon Boulevard 27 Wilmington, CA 90744 28 29 In addition to printed copies of the Draft EIR, electronic versions are available. 30 Due to the size of the document, the electronic versions have been prepared as a 31 series of PDF files to facilitate downloading and printing. Members of the public 32 can request a CD containing this document. The Draft EIR is available in its 33 entirety on the Port of Los Angeles website at: www.portoflosangeles.org 34

Interested parties may provide written comments on the Draft EIR, which must 35 be postmarked by May 10, 2018. Please address comments to: 36

Christopher Cannon, Director of Environmental Management 37 Los Angeles Harbor Department 38 425 South Palos Verdes Street 39 San Pedro, CA 90731 40

41 Comments can also be submitted via email. Emailed comments should include 42 the title of the project in the subject line and a valid mailing address in the body 43 of the email. Email comments should be sent to [email protected]. 44

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Chapter 1 Introduction - portoflosangeles.org Marine Oil/DEIR/01_Shell... · 16 Torrance, Phillips 66-Wilmington, ... APM Container Terminal!! ... l Figure 1-2 Project Vicinity Map